Cardinal Sodano's Address to U.N. Summit

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Why would that be a bad idea?

A lot of innocent people would die. The Pope in his Message for the Day of Peace 1976 said vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/messages/peace/documents/hf_p-vi_mes_19751018_ix-world-day-for-peace_en.html

It is necessary before all else to provide Peace with other weapons - weapons different from those destined to kill and exterminate mankind. What is needed above all are moral weapons, those which give strength and prestige to international law - the weapon, in the first place, of the observance of pacts. Pacta sunt servanda is the still valid axiom for the consistency of effective relations between States, for the stability of justice between Nations, for the upright conscience of Peoples. Peace makes this axiom its shield. And where pacts do not reflect justice? Here is the justification for the new international Institutions, the mediators for consultations, studies and deliberations, which must absolutely exclude the ways of the so-called fait accompli, that is to say, the contention of blind and uncontrolled forces, which always involve human victims and incalculable and unimputable ruin, rarely attaining the pure object of effectively vindicating a truly just cause. Arms and wars are, in a word, to be excluded from civilization’s programmes. Judicious disarming is another weapon of Peace. As the prophet Isaiah said: "He will wield authority over the nations and adjudicate between many peoples; these will hammer their swords into ploughshares, their spears into sickles " (Is 2:4). And then let us listen to the word of Christ: “Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt 26:52). Is this utopia? For how much longer?..

If the consciousness of universal brotherhood truly penetrates into the hearts of men, will they still need to arm themselves to the point of becoming blind and fanatic killers of their brethren who in themselves are innocent, and of perpetrating, as a contribution to Peace, butchery of untold magnitude, as at Hiroshima on 6 August 1945? And in fact has not our own time had an example ofwhat can be done by a weak man, Gandhi - armed only with the principle of non-violence - to vindicate for a Nation of hundreds of millions of human beings the freedom and dignity of a new People?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

A lot of innocent people would die.

Given the number of people who have already died in Africa, through enforced famine, deliberate genocide, and plain old-fashioned brutality, it’s hard to see how leaving these brutal, corrupt governments to do their will for another half century would result in FEWER deaths than overthrowing them.

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

Given the number of people who have already died in Africa, through enforced famine, deliberate genocide, and plain old-fashioned brutality, it’s hard to see how leaving these brutal, corrupt governments to do their will for another half century would result in FEWER deaths than overthrowing them.

The responsibility for many of these deaths rests with AIDS and other diseases. Drought and environmental destruction are also implicated. Not to mention the barriers to trade that stop the poor of the Third World working their way out of poverty.

If dictatorship is the cause of poverty why is the Chinese economy growing so swiftly?

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

A lot of innocent people would die.

Then are you saying we should never attack them?

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

Then are you saying we should never attack them?

Invading countries for the purpose of regime change is illegal in international law. So yes I would oppose illegal acts.

The legal grounds for war were outlined by the attorney general in his advice to Tony Blair prior to the (illegal) invasion of Iraq globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

1. As I have previously advised, there are generally three possible bases for the use of force: (a) self-defence (which may include collective self-defence);

(b) exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and

(c) authorisation by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

1. Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack; the use of force must be necessary, ie the only means of averting an attack; and the force used must be a proportionate response. It is now widely accepted that an imminent armed attack will justify the use of force if the other conditions are met.

The concept of what is imminent may depend on the circumstances. Different considerations may apply, for example, where the risk is of attack from terrorists sponsored or harboured by a particular State, or where there is a threat of an attack by nuclear weapons.

However, in my opinion there must be some degree of imminence. I am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.

1. The use of force to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe has been emerging as a further, and exceptional, basis for the use of force. It was relied on by the UK in the Kosovo crisis and is the underlying justification for the No-Fly Zones. The doctrine remains controversial, however. I know of no reason why it would be an appropriate basis for action in present circumstances.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

The responsibility for many of these deaths rests with AIDS and other diseases.

Diseases which brutal, corrupt governments ignore or even welcome.

Matt25:

Drought and environmental destruction are also implicated.

Environmental destruction caused by incompetent mis-management and brutal corrupt government. Zimbabwe is a case in point, remember?

Matt25:

Not to mention the barriers to trade that stop the poor of the Third World working their way out of poverty.

They get food, by your own claim, “dumped” on them – sold to them cheaper than the cost of production. And as we have seen, they are increasingly without commodities sell. Zimbabwe is a case in point, remember?

Also, by your own citations, dropping the barriers caused food production to go down in Third World nations – Mexico is a case in point, remember?

Matt25:

If dictatorship is the cause of poverty why is the Chinese economy growing so swiftly?

Because the Chinese have abandoned Maoism, and gone back to their traditional roots, which include entrepreneuralism.

But don’t mistake a growing economy for a decline in poverty.

 

[Matt25]

vern humphrey:

Environmental destruction caused by incompetent mis-management and brutal corrupt government. Zimbabwe is a case in point, remember?

.

american.edu/TED/ice/ogonioil.htm

The social and environmental costs of oil production have been extensive. They include destruction of wildlife and biodiversity, loss of fertile soil, pollution of air and drinking water, degradation of farmland and damage to aquatic ecosystems, all of which have caused serious health problems for the inhabitants of areas surrounding oil production. Pollution is caused by gas flaring, above ground pipeline leakage, oil waste dumping and oil spills. Approximately 75% of gas produced is flared annually causing considerable ecological and physical damage to other resources such as land/soil, water and vegetation. Gas flares, which are often times situated close to villages, produce “soot which is deposited on building roofs of neighboring villages. Whenever it rains, the soot is washed off and the black ink-like water running from the roofs is believed to contain chemicals which adversely effect the fertility of the soil.” Without fertile soil, indigenous groups lose their mode of survival and are faced with the crisis of food shortages.

Gas pipelines have also caused irreparable damage to lands once used for agricultural purposes. These pipes should be buried to reduce risk of fracture and spillage. However, they are often laid above ground and run directly through villages, where oil leaks have rendered the land economically useless. An account of Shell Oil Company’s record in the Ogoni region uncovers a “ravaged environment …(in which) oil pulses out of burst pipes and slicks dead vegetation.” Although in its operation in other countries Shell ensures that it does not degrade the environment, it does not take such precautions in Nigeria…The Ogoni have never seen, let alone been consulted over, an environmental impact assessment."

Oil spills and the dumping oil into waterways has been extensive, often poisoning drinking water and destroying vegetation. These incidents have become common occupance due to the lack of laws and enforcement measures within the existing political regime. Between 1970 and 1982, 1,581 incidents of oil spillage were documented in Nigeria. In addition, “according to an independent record of Shell’s spills from 1982 to 1992, 1,626,000 gallons were spilt from the company’s Nigerian operations in 27 sperate incidents. Of the number of spills recorded from Shell - a company which operates in more than 100 countries - 40% were in Nigeria.”

Environmental regulations which are common practice in developed nations are often not followed due to their lack of power, wealth and equity of the affected communities. As a result, oil companies often evacuate inhabitants from their homelands, further marginalizing them. The system of oil production in Nigeria clearly is heavily skewed in favor of the multi-nationals and government elites who are the direct recipients of oil production revenue.

The oil industry in Nigeria has had a number of environmental and socio-economic effects both in the regions where oil drilling and shipping primarily take place, and in the larger country itself. The current crisis is largely concentrated the southwestern oil producing areas of Rivers, Cross River, and Delta. These areas of the country have been severely damaged by environmental pollution from oil spills, dumping of waste products, burning of excess gases, pipe-line leaks, oil well blowouts, and gas-flaring operations. One particular ethnic group in Nigeria, the Ogonis, have organized and protested against both the Nigerian federal government and Shell Oil, as the major oil producer in the region. The Ogonis have charged that Shell Oil has consistently damaged the local environment by: operating a number of off-shore rigs and oil port facilities which have seriously damaged “the tropical rain forest in the northern reaches of the Delta and mangrove vegetation to the south” (Hutchful, 1985). These areas are vital to the local fishing industry and other local industries. As well, mangrove wood which is found in this area is used in construction, and as firewood and charcoal (see Mangrove Case).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Matt25:

The oil industry in Nigeria has had a number of environmental and socio-economic effects both in the regions where oil drilling and shipping primarily take place, and in the larger country itself.

My priest, Father Willifred Okrojukwu, is from Nigeria. We have long talks about the problems of West Africa – and belive me, brutal, corrupt government, genocide, and all the evils that go with it are a lot worse than oil pipelines!!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Matt25:

The responsibility for many of these deaths rests with AIDS and other diseases.

Much of the AIDS in Africa is caused by war rape.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Much of the AIDS in Africa is caused by war rape.

And more is caused by the abominable superstition that by raping a virgin you can cure AIDS – something corrupt governments have failed to deal with.

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Invading countries for the purpose of regime change is illegal in international law. So yes I would oppose illegal acts…

So no matter how vile the dictator. No matter if he was committing genocide in his nation. No matter what horrendous acts he committed against God and man, you would not attack him? And somehow you think this position is supported by Catholicism?

 

[abcdefg]

gilliam:

And somehow you think this position is supported by Catholicism?

not supported by catholicism obviously.

 

[rlg94086]

Matt25:

Invading countries for the purpose of regime change is illegal in international law. So yes I would oppose illegal acts.

The legal grounds for war were outlined by the attorney general in his advice to Tony Blair prior to the (illegal) invasion of Iraq globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

1. As I have previously advised, there are generally three possible bases for the use of force: (a) self-defence (which may include collective self-defence);

(b) exceptionally, to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe; and

(c) authorisation by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

1. Force may be used in self-defence if there is an actual or imminent threat of an armed attack; the use of force must be necessary, ie the only means of averting an attack; and the force used must be a proportionate response. It is now widely accepted that an imminent armed attack will justify the use of force if the other conditions are met.

The concept of what is imminent may depend on the circumstances. Different considerations may apply, for example, where the risk is of attack from terrorists sponsored or harboured by a particular State, or where there is a threat of an attack by nuclear weapons.

However, in my opinion there must be some degree of imminence. I am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law.

1. The use of force to avert overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe has been emerging as a further, and exceptional, basis for the use of force. It was relied on by the UK in the Kosovo crisis and is the underlying justification for the No-Fly Zones. The doctrine remains controversial, however. I know of no reason why it would be an appropriate basis for action in present circumstances.

Others are more knowledgable than me about this, but let me give it a go…

The first Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN and “ended” in a cease-fire agreement. As Saddam broke his agreements, we resumed an already sanctioned military action. Therefore, I don’t believe the overthrow of his regime was illegal.

Now, lets help them get some stability and fight off the people who are intentionally bombing innocent civilians. Hopefully, our troops will be able to pull out of there in a reasonable timeframe.

God Bless,

Robert

 

[gilliam]

Matt25:

Invading countries for the purpose of regime change is illegal in international law. So yes I would oppose illegal acts.

.

BTW [not that I think international law (which is a misnomer by the way), takes precident over natural law… it does not, but since you use international law as the moral center for your arguement], I will quote this:

“In the final declaration last week 191 countries, including Sudan and North Korea, went along with a restatement of international law: that the world community has the right to take military action in the case of ‘national authorities manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’. It comes too late to help Darfur, not to mention Rwanda and Cambodia, but it is a millennial change.”

guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1573765,00.html

THAT’S RIGHT I QUOTED THE GUARDIAN

And now that this principle is established, the next international human right is clear. (that is to say, the right to bare arms). You see: The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, is that “a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country’s civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide.”

Hat tip

Again, it really doesn’t matter what the “international community” (another misnomer) says, nothing trumps Natural Law. And as we all know (or should know by now), everyone is created with certain unalienable rights. Which include life and liberty.

 

[abcdefg]

Matt25:

If dictatorship is the cause of poverty why is the Chinese economy growing so swiftly?

Do you want to live in China?
I refuse to acknowledge Chinese economy is growing swiftly. There’s a piece of news regarding how Chinese don’t have enough to die

If you like I’ll translate further such news
Father work 18 hours a day to support child in college, died suddenly on Mid Autumn Day
Having no money to treat son’s serious disease, father offers his kidney for sale
A woman in sixties caught advanced cancer, 4 paralyzed daughter offer themselves for sale to collect money

you can use google automatic translator if you want to read them.

 

[aimee]

abcdefg:

Do you want to live in China?
I refuse to acknowledge Chinese economy is growing swiftly. There’s a piece of news regarding how Chinese don’t have enough to die

If you like I’ll translate further such news
Father work 18 hours a day to support child in college, died suddenly on Mid Autumn Day
Having no money to treat son’s serious disease, father offers his kidney for sale
A woman in sixties caught advanced cancer, 4 paralyzed daughter offer themselves for sale to collect money

you can use google automatic translator if you want to read them.

This is shocking…thanks for posting…I’ll check it out.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

So no matter how vile the dictator. No matter if he was committing genocide in his nation. No matter what horrendous acts he committed against God and man, you would not attack him? And somehow you think this position is supported by Catholicism?

NO. This behaviour is NOT supported by Catholicism, unfortunatey it is supported by many western governments including the UK, USA and others when it suits their political needs.

It always dispirits me when I hear Catholics arguing betwen themselves about what this dictator or that dictator did to whom, when, how ad nausium. But the moment anyone dares to criticise their government or whatever all their wonderful Catholic ideals fly out of the window.

Let us be perfectly frank, NO dictator could exist without the support, open or covert, of the countries around it and those that deal with it. Saddam Hussain could never have risen to the power he held without America, Mugabe could never do what he does without South Africa, Bin Laden would not be what he is without the support of the west during his fight with the Soviets.

Equally so, when we criticise those who we see to be supporting dictators, for instance the current UN stories, how many of the companies who broke sanctions or worked behind the scenes to make lots and lots of money were western, UK, American, French, German etc.? Mention those and the blinds immedeately descend and we retreat into nationalistic rhetoric, unless of course the company involved is not from OUR country.

What is suported by Catholicism is the CARITAS approach, by-pass the government and get aid directly to the people who need it. In other words If you really want to “FREE” people take God to them, not the gun! I seem to remember the teaching of our Lord when he asked, “Did you feed me?, Did you visit me in prison?” I don’t seem to remember him saying “Did you shoot me? Did you torture me in prison?”.

Also remember what he said, “Those who die in my name etc.” so what in the name of God are you frightened of? Or is it that you don’t believe him?

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

NO. This behaviour is NOT supported by Catholicism, unfortunatey it is supported by many western governments including the UK, USA and others when it suits their political needs.

What part of Catholicism says we have to sit on our hands when our neighbors are being murdered and buried in mass graves, when their wives and daughters are being raped as part of government policy, and when unspeakable brutalities are being committed by corrupt, brutal and sadistic dictators?

What’s the difference between a dictator killing hundreds of thousands of people on one side of the border, and killing hundreds of thousands on the other?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

walstan:

NO. This behaviour is NOT supported by Catholicism, unfortunatey it is supported by many western governments including the UK, USA and others when it suits their political needs.

That is a very serious allegation. Vile dictatorships, genocide, and horrendous acts against God and man have been supported by the UK, US, and others? When it suits their political needs? And you don’t think it necessary to provide any support for such a bald statement?

walstan:

Let us be perfectly frank, NO dictator could exist without the support, open or covert, of the countries around it and those that deal with it. Saddam Hussain could never have risen to the power he held without America, Mugabe could never do what he does without South Africa, Bin Laden would not be what he is without the support of the west during his fight with the Soviets.

You are covering a wide territory over a broad span of time and differing circumstances. I take it you are most concerned about South Africa?

walstan:

Equally so, when we criticise those who we see to be supporting dictators, for instance the current UN stories, how many of the companies who broke sanctions or worked behind the scenes to make lots and lots of money were western, UK, American, French, German etc.?

Please specify.

walstan:

Mention those and the blinds immedeately descend and we retreat into nationalistic rhetoric, unless of course the company involved is not from OUR country.

Your criticism is of a very broad-brush nature, highly inflammatory, and, thus far, totally unsupported. I am wondering if you would be so kind as to be more specific?

walstan:

What is suported by Catholicism is the CARITAS approach, by-pass the government and get aid directly to the people who need it.

No problem with the ideal of getting directly to the people who need it. How do you propose stopping the dictators from taking your aid or massacring those delivering the aid?

walstan:

Also remember what he said, “Those who die in my name etc.” so what in the name of God are you frightened of? Or is it that you don’t believe him?

This is inflammatory; an indirect attack. There is no need for such a display.

 

[walstan]

That is a very serious allegation. Vile dictatorships, genocide, and horrendous acts against God and man have been supported by the UK, US, and others? When it suits their political needs? And you don’t think it necessary to provide any support for such a bald statement?

So the western powers did not support Saddam Hussain in his war against Iran? The western powers did not support Bin Laden when he was fighting Russia in Ahfganistan? South Africa, by it’s inabilty to condemn is not giving tacit support to Mugabe? China did not support North Korea in the Korean war? America and Britain did not support Stalin during the last WW? The list goes on and on and anyone naive enough not to believe governments have no interest in being ultruistic: unless it serves their purposes, really doesn’t deserve a vote in a “free” society.

You are covering a wide territory over a broad span of time and differing circumstances. I take it you are most concerned about South Africa?

Of course it covers a broad span of time, human nature covers a broad span of time. It would appear that one is quite at liberty to quote from the OT but not, it seems, refer back a relatively small number of years.

Please specify.

Specify what? OK try oil. If, as is contended Saddam was selling oil on the “black market” i.e. through the UN, who was buying it? There are only a limited number of companies that could, are you telling me, or the rest of the world they didn’t KNOW where or how that oil came onto the market? Do you really contend that companies, versed in world events and capable of handling themselves in the cu throat markets of this world were “conned” into buying “Illegal” oil? If you believe that I have a couple of wooden nickels you might like to look at.

Your criticism is of a very broad-brush nature, highly inflammatory, and, thus far, totally unsupported. I am wondering if you would be so kind as to be more specific?

Simple, look at all the critcism on this forum alone of the French for example and how they were against any move on Iraq because of the percieved “ties” they had. It seems that French companies are fair game, but look what happens if anyone mentions Halliburton?

No problem with the ideal of getting directly to the people who need it. How do you propose stopping the dictators from taking your aid or massacring those delivering the aid?

If it happens often enough, the people to whom the aid is being delivered. Equally so, to much action against aid agencies, particularly those with a Christian ethos will result in a loss of support from the outside countries that lend either open or covert support (ever had that feeling of deja vuie) because of the poor publicity that inevatibly results. Even the most hardened dictators know the old maxim about biting the hand that feeds you. Those that don’t, finish up like Saddam.

This is inflammatory; an indirect attack. There is no need for such a display.

It is not inflammatory, it’s a reminder of Gods promise, the question for everyone is simple, do you believe? If you do then you have NOTHING in this world to fear, if you don’t, then remove the word Catholic from your resume.